- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal And Another v. State Of J&K And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were recruited by the State Government on an ad hoc basis and have continued in that capacity for more than thirteen years. Seeking regularisation of their services, they filed a writ petition before the High Court, which dismissed the petition by relying on the Supreme Court decision in J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan. The present appeal challenges that dismissal. After granting leave, the Supreme Court heard counsel for both sides and proceeded to decide the matter.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether ad hoc employees who have served for an extended period (over thirteen years) acquire a legal right to be regularised in service.
- Whether, under the applicable statutory rules, regular recruitment must be conducted exclusively through the Public Service Commission (PSC), rendering ad hoc appointments purely temporary and dehors the rules.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Because they have rendered more than thirteen years of continuous service, they are entitled to be regularised in their posts.
Respondents' Arguments
- Reliance on the precedent of J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan, which holds that ad hoc appointments confer no right to regularisation and that regular recruitment must follow the statutory rules through the PSC.
- Noted that the existing selection panel had lapsed during the period in which this Court’s interim stay order was operative.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630; (1994) 27 ATC 56 |
Recruitment to public service must be conducted under the applicable statutory rules through the Public Service Commission; ad hoc appointments are temporary and confer no right to regularisation. | The Court treated the present controversy as “squarely covered” by this decision, replicated its directions for fresh recruitment through the PSC, and rejected any claim to automatic regularisation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the legal position settled in Narinder Mohan governs the case: statutory recruitment rules prevail, and ad hoc appointments remain purely temporary pending regular selection. Consequently, the Court:
- Declined to recognise any vested right of the appellants to be regularised merely on the strength of long ad hoc service.
- Directed the State Government to notify all existing vacancies to the PSC within two months.
- Directed the PSC to complete the selection process within three months of receiving the requisition and to recommend candidates to the State Government.
- Required the State Government to make appointments from the PSC’s selection list within two months of its receipt.
- Ordered that the appellants would continue only on an ad hoc basis until regularly selected candidates are appointed.
- Recognised that the appellants are presently over-age for direct recruitment and therefore directed the State Government to grant the necessary age relaxation to allow them to compete.
- Extended the life of the existing selection panel for a period equivalent to the duration of this Court’s stay order, addressing the respondent’s concern that the panel had lapsed.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISPOSED OF with specific directions for fresh recruitment through the Public Service Commission and interim continuance of the appellants on an ad hoc basis.
Implications: The decision reinforces the principle that ad hoc service does not create a right to regularisation and that statutory recruitment procedures must be followed. While it grants transitional relief (age relaxation and continued ad hoc service) to the appellants, it sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the rule laid down in Narinder Mohan.
Order
1. Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
2. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court reported in J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan (1994) 2 SCC 630, (1994) 27 ATC 56. It is not in dispute that the appellants were recruited on ad hoc basis and have been continuing as such. It is their contention that since they had put in more than 13 years of service they are entitled to regularisation of service and approached the High Court for direction to regularise their services. The High Court has followed the ratio in the above judgment and dismissed the petition. In the light of the judgment of this Court the settled legal position now is that the recruitment to the service should be governed by the appropriate statutory rules. Under the rules the regular recruitment to the posts shall be made by the Public Service Commission. Consequentially, the ad hoc appointments would be only temporary appointments dehors the rules, pending regular recruitment without conferring any right to regularisation of service. This Court in Narinder Mohan case (1994) 2 SCC 630, (1994) 27 ATC 56 had given the following directions:
“Accordingly, we set aside the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and confirm those of the Single Judge and direct the State Government of J & K to notify the vacancies to the PSC which would process and complete the selection, as early as possible, within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of this order. The State Government should on receipt of the recommendation, make appointments in the order mentioned in the selection list within a period of two months thereafter. Since the respondents have been continuing as ad hoc doctors, they shall continue till the regularly selected candidates are appointed. They are also entitled to apply for selection. In case any of the respondents are barred by age, the State Government is directed to consider the cases for necessary relaxation under Rule 9(3) of the age qualification. If any of the respondents are not selected, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated with the appointment of the selected candidate. The direction sought for by Dr Vinay Rampal cannot be given. His appeal is accordingly dismissed and the State appeal is also dismissed. The appeals of the PSC are accordingly allowed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.”
3. Following the above directions, there shall be a direction to the State Government to notify the vacancies to the Public Service Commission within a period of two months from today. On notification so made, it would be open to the appellants to apply for regular recruitment. It would be for the PSC to consider the respective claims of the candidates who have applied for and to make necessary selection according to rules. On selection so made and recommendation made to the State Government, the State Government will make appointments as per rules within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the list of the selected candidates from the PSC. The PSC is directed to complete the process of the selection within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the requisition. The State Government after receipt of the lists shall make the necessary appointments in accordance with law. Till then the appellants would continue only on ad hoc basis till the regularly selected candidates are appointed.
4. It is obvious that the appellants have become barred by age for the direct recruitment. It would, therefore, be necessary that the State Government would relax the necessary age qualification so as to enable them to apply for and seek recruitment through PSC.
5. The contesting respondents who have come on record have stated that the panel stands expired during the interregnum due to the order of suspension granted by this Court. Under these circumstances, the life of the panel is extended for the period during which the stay order is in operation.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Alert